AN INSIDE LOOK - Commentary and opinions on local politics and life in general in Southeastern Massachusetts! Featuring the writings of Bill Gouveia, newspaper columnist for the Sun Chronicle and local cable TV talk show host. Feel free to read, comment and enjoy!

Monday, June 30, 2014

This column originally appeared in The Sun Chronicle on Monday June 30, 2014

AN INSIDE LOOK

By Bill Gouveia

In the wake of yet
another recent senseless and violent school shooting, one thing has become abundantly
clear to me.Those who keep saying guns
are not to blame are absolutely right.

Not a one of those
guns used in the school shootings went off by themselves.Every single weapon was fired by an
individual who intended to kill those in their sights.The blame for the deaths of innocent children
and adults in these situations lies with those people, and not in the inanimate
objects they fired with such effectiveness.

My friends on the
pro-gun side of the debate have totally convinced me of this undeniable
fact.They say it all the time.Gun Rights advocates tell us it is the people
firing the weapons who are defective, not the guns themselves.

They point out how
no one suggests we ban or restrict the use of automobiles after some crazed
killer runs down a crowd with a vehicle.It is senseless to blame guns for these national tragedies that just
keep occurring, they say over and over.

And while they are
correct, there is one glaring problem with their logical and quite effective
argument:

They are pretty
much the only people making the ridiculous suggestion that guns themselves are
being unfairly attacked.

Sure, there are
some extreme left-wing liberals who want all guns banned so the world will be a
peaceful place where everything is decided by calm discussion and the sharing
of crunchy granola.But they are in the
vast minority.

Most Americans who
favor stronger gun control laws do not want guns taken away or banned.They don’t
want an America that is weak and defenseless.They believe people should be able to responsibly own firearms for their
own protection, and for various other reasons.

Instead, they want
strong laws that make it harder –even if only a little bit –for these mentally unstable and
irresponsible individuals to get their hands on guns.They want preventive measures that try to
restrict guns to those who responsibly handle them, and away from those who
would use them to kill in our schools.

So I have decided
to back the more conservative voices in this great discussion.It is time to concentrate our attention on
those who might perform these heinous crimes, and less on the tools they use
during them.

Now –how do we keep these potential killers
from using innocent guns to kill our friends and neighbors?Hmm, let’s
think about that.

Hey –how about we require stringent
background checks on a national basis whenever someone buys a gun?I know, it won’t prevent all the nut-jobs from
getting their hands on firearms.But if
it only prevents one dead schoolchild a year, wouldn’t that be worth it?

Maybe we should
protect the poor guns by making sure they can’t be blindly acquired at gun shows by
people trying to find loopholes through which they can gain access?If we keep them out of the hands and homes of
people unworthy to own them, these “killing
machines”can’t
be unfairly maligned.

Perhaps we require
mandatory gun training for those who receive licenses and make sure they
properly register their weapons.This
should be no big deal for the millions of people who keep and carry guns for
all the right reasons.They are merely
trying to protect their families and homes, or perhaps do some hunting or sport
shooting.They should welcome the chance
to keep guns away from those who don’t
follow their excellent example.

It is not the fault
of guns that they can now be virtual weapons of mass destruction in the hands
of the crazed or irresponsible.Guns do
not choose to be empowered with the ability to fire hundreds of rounds of
ammunition in mere seconds.It is the
people who purchase weapons designed for warfare rather than personal use who
put the pressure on law-abiding American gun owners.

This problem has
never been about guns themselves.The
real issue has always been who should have access to them, and how regulated
that access should be.

It is time to
listen to those gun advocates.They’ve been right all along - sort of.

Bill
Gouveia is a local columnist and longtime area town official.He can be emailed at aninsidelook@aol.com and
followed on Twitter at @Billinsidelook.

Friday, June 20, 2014

This column originally appeared in The Sun Chronicle on Friday, June 20, 2014

AN INSIDE LOOK

By Bill Gouveia

When the
Opening Meeting Law works, it is usually because citizens decide their right to
have public business done out in the open is worth the difficult process
required to make that happen.

So thank
you, Heather Harding.

For those
who may not know, Harding is the person who filed a series of OML complaints
with the Town of Foxboro and eventually the state attorney general’s office
over the actions of Foxboro selectmen.
So far, two of her complaints have been determined by the AG’s office to
have been actual violations.

As a
result, the Foxboro board has been subjected to what passes for harsh
punishment under the rather toothless terms of the OML. They must review the AG’s training video on
deliberations, and certify they have done so in writing within 30 days.

Oh, the
horror. That should teach them, right?

But at this
point, the punishment is not the most important thing to come out of this
debacle. What truly matters is there
seems to be at least some willingness on the part of state officials to uphold this
weak law. That will hopefully inspire
more people like Heather Harding to stand up for all our rights, even when it
may not be popular to do so.

Harding
correctly pointed out that selectmen engaged in what the AG’s office called
“serial deliberation outside of a properly posted meeting”. That began when Selectman Lorraine Brue sent
a carefully-worded email to some officials questioning the legality and wisdom
of something she had voted to support just the night before.

Brue’s
email questioned whether or not the board had violated the OML 24 hours earlier
when they voted unanimously to send two of their members to an informational
meeting with representatives of an applicant for a liquor license. Though she tried to temper her email’s intent
with a heading including the phrase “no response please”, it was quite evident
she was engaging in discussion that was improper outside of a public meeting.

Her excuse
concerning why she had not brought up her issues in front of the public rather
than away from them was a poor one and lacked believability. Her email started a chain-reaction between
other selectmen and the town manager as well as town counsel.

In effect,
they undid in private what they had voted to do in public. You can’t do that without at least being
exposed. But the punishment is a big
nothing, and it can be argued Selectman Brue and some of her colleagues
achieved their political objective without having to do it in front of the
voters who elected them.

So far
there has been no real admission of guilt or apology from the board or the
individual members. None is required
under the terms of their punishment, but it would seem they owe the townspeople
something in this regard. After weeks of
insisting they had done nothing wrong, it was found they in fact had.

There are
still complaints pending that have some connection to those already
adjudicated. It could very well be
selectmen have been advised by their legal counsel not to comment for fear of
incurring liability for both themselves and the town.

And
politically, remaining mum on this subject is probably the smartest thing
selectmen can do. OML violations are
seldom taken very seriously for long.
Allowing this whole mess to pass slowly into oblivion would work to
their advantage.

Some have
suggested Brue should resign over this matter.
Without making light of her actions, they simply do not call for a move
that extreme.

But
Selectmen Brue has clearly been found to be in the wrong here. So has her board as a whole, and some other
individual members as well. They owe
their constituents not just an apology, but a sincere one.

Expecting
Foxboro residents to believe selectmen’s attempt to cure one OML violation by
committing another was an unintentional action is to insult their intelligence. Selectmen did something wrong, and they got
caught.

As Heather
Harding said some many months ago, “"It seems to me purely cut-and-dried.
You say, 'Yeah, I made a mistake' and you move on."

Let’s hope
Foxboro selectmen take that good advice to heart.

Bill Gouveia is a local columnist and
longtime area town official. He can be
emailed at aninsidelook@aol.com and followed on Twitter at @Billinsidelook.

Tuesday, June 17, 2014

This column originally appeared in The Sun Chronicle on Monday, June 16, 2014.

AN INSIDE LOOK

By Bill Gouveia

There is a
general rule that should apply to all local governments when dealing with the
voters who elect them:

If you have
no intention of listening to what the people you govern have to say – then stop
asking them questions.

If North
Attleboro citizens needed any further proof their local government doesn’t care
what they think, they got it recently.
For the umpteenth time in the last two decades, the town’s
Representative Town Meeting sent a clear message to voters. That message said, “Stop trying to tell us
what to do. We are smarter than you.”

Last year
selectmen put a nonbinding question on the ballot seeking to require voter
approval to abolish town boards. The
townspeople then voted 1478-229 in favor, a majority of close to 84 percent.

Now, the
concept was not a good idea. The
selectmen should have either sponsored the article when it was presented to
them, or told the sponsors to advance it on their own. The board members failed to do what they were
elected to do – provide leadership.
Instead, they asked yet another meaningless and toothless non-binding
question on the ballot.

But they
did ask. And they got an answer. They were very careful to make sure that
answer could be ignored. They simply allowed
frustrated citizens to vent their feelings, get it off their chests, and then
go back to complaining and lamenting the fact they can’t seem to change
anything.

The RTM was
under no legal obligation to support the ballot initiative. They had a legitimate argument that it
undercut the foundation of the current form of government – shaky as that
foundation may be. Their vote to defeat
it was actually quite understandable.

But the
attitude they took in doing it was demeaning and insulting to the citizens of
North Attleboro. And don’t think for a
second that was accidental.

People in
North, your RTM government just doesn’t seem to like you. It considers you an obstacle. You are something to be manipulated, managed,
and ignored when it suits their purpose.

They are
the parent, you are the children. They
know best. Now go back outside and play,
and let the adults make the decisions.

When
debating the approved referendum question, RTM members seemed more concerned
with their authority being questioned than if the proposal was good for the
town. Quotes from RTM members included
“If you vote for this, our fellow RTM members, you give your authority away”,
“Don’t be pushed around, vote no”, and the interesting “This was a nitwit
question on the ballot and this is a nitwit article”.

The vast
majority of RTM members were elected with far, far fewer than the 1478 votes
the ballot question they ridiculed received.
It makes you wonder – if 84 percent of those voting passed a “nitwit”
article, would that label then also apply to the RTM members they chose at the
same election?

To be fair,
there were RTM members who defended the public’s right to have their votes
taken seriously. One member warned that
continuing to ignore clear requests from the voters would be going “down a
slippery slope”.

RTM members
are secure in their positions. The
majority of them run without opposition.
They believe they should tell the voters what to do, and not the other
way around.

RTM does
not work in North Attleboro. It is too
big, too powerful, and too isolated. It
is more of a private club than a public institution.

There is
nothing new here. North’s RTM has many
good people working within it, but they are trapped in a bad system. This has been going on for a long time, and
no doubt will continue unchanged for the foreseeable future.

Because
that’s the way the political establishment in North Attleboro wants it. They don’t let anyone – particularly the
voters – get in their way. And while you
all may be sick and tired of hearing this, that doesn’t make it one bit less
true.

North
Attleboro’s government won’t change because the system and the people running
it won’t allow it. And if you really
believe that doesn’t discourage people from voting, then I have this swampland
I’d like to discuss selling you…

Bill Gouveia is a local columnist and
longtime area town official. He can be
emailed at aninsidelook@aol.com and followed on Twitter at @Billinsidelook.

Thursday, June 12, 2014

This column originally appeared in The Sun Chronicle on Friday, June 13, 2014

AN INSIDE LOOK

By Bill Gouveia

I hated Father’s Day when I
was growing up.It was an awkward time,
and I always wished we could just skip it.

Not
that my home life was horrible, mind you.My parents split when I was 12, and the few years before that weren’t
exactly cheerful and homey.But my first
decade was spent in what I consider a great childhood.I was the oldest of three, lived in a nice
residential neighborhood with lots of friends, and had tons of family nearby.

But
even before the split, my dad was not exactly the type that celebrated Father’s
Day.He was a hard-working
Portuguese-American who was putting himself through college, working three or
more jobs to support us, and who considered excessive emotion to be a
weakness.He would make time to
celebrate his family members, but celebrating himself just seemed silly.

It
was good Father’s Day was on a Sunday, because that was one of the few times we
would see Dad.Between attending night school,
working days in a Boston financial firm, and butchering meat on nights and
weekends, his free time was at a premium.As kids, we knew that and understood.

His
generation of fathers seemed to concentrate on “providing” as the overriding
principle upon which they built their lives.He wanted us to live in a nice house.He took pride in putting steak on the table several nights a week.He mowed the grass regularly, took pride in
his home and family, and minded his own business.

We
never doubted that he loved us.But the
way he showed it was hard to fully comprehend.He came from a different country and a different life with more
responsibilities.He probably had as
tough a time understanding our needs as we did his.I shouldn’t speak for my brother or my late
sister though.Maybe it was just me.

I
remember my dad being at exactly one of my Little League games.It was a big deal, and I was extremely
excited.He wasn’t a huge sports fan, so
that wasn’t something we bonded over. But half a century later, I still recall him
standing along the third base line smiling at me as I batted.

My
dad never had “the talk” with me.He
never taught me how to shave.We never
discussed girls, talked sparingly of school, and had very few truly emotional
moments between us.As I grew into my
later teenage years, that became a good thing because the emotional moments
were seldom about sentiment and often about resentment.

Despite
our differences, I saw my dad as the strongest man in the world.I respected how hard he worked and what he
accomplished.And though I was more
outgoing, I proudly became a lot like him in other ways.

Then
I got married and became a father.My
perspective – and my world – slowly changed.

I
wanted to be a good provider, like my dad.I worked 80 hours per week.When
I had the opportunity to start a business with a friend, that number went even
higher.I was building a future for my
family, and I was proud of what I was doing.

But
I should have done some things differently.I know that now.

I
wish I had provided less financially and more emotionally for my kids.They could have done with a few less toys and
a lot more Dad.I was there for lots of
special moments in their lives, but I wish I had been there for more.

I believe
I’ve been a reasonably good father, but understand now I could have been so
much better.Being a grandfather has
given me the opportunity to try and make up for past failures, even if only in
my own mind.

I loved my
dad, but I’m glad I didn’t grow up to be just like him.And I’m truly grateful my own two sons didn’t
grow up to be just like me.Because of
them, and the kind of dads they have become, Father’s Day is now one of my
favorite holidays.

A good
father never stops learning how to be a better dad.Happy Father’s Day to all you dads.

Bill Gouveia is a local columnist,
father of two and grandfather of three.He can be emailed at aninsidelook@aol.com and followed on Twitter at
@Billinsidelook.

Tuesday, June 10, 2014

Last
week this space discussed a list of reasons why you should consider serving as
an elected or appointed town official. Now it’s time to turn to the dark side.

While
I am personally a huge advocate of getting involved in your local government,
there are solid reasons why people generally don’t.Some are a reflection of our times and
society today.Others are simply the
price you pay for taking the initiative and having the grit to be a direct
participant.

So
in the interest of fairness and presenting both sides, I now offer you “Bill’s
Top Five Reasons Not To Serve As A Local Elected or Appointed Official”.Please note, the reasons stated do not
necessarily reflect the personal opinions of this particular opinion columnist.Having said that, here goes:

1.It takes a lot of your valuable time.No matter what elected or appointed post you might
choose to seek, you have to understand it requires serious effort.Obviously, the depth of commitment varies
with the position.As an elected town
moderator today, the demand on my attention is far less than when I served as a
selectman or finance committee member.But not everyone does it the same way.Some manage their efforts more efficiently than others, and the existing
political climate at the time you serve is a crucial factor.These are far from full-time positions, but
if you aren’t prepared to devote at least some serious time to them – stay
away.

2.You will be severely criticized no matter what you
do.If your skin is on the thin
side, local government probably isn’t for you.People will openly question your honesty and integrity without even
knowing you personally.You can easily
become judged by your last vote rather than your consistent efforts at
governing.Those who support you are
likely to do so quietly, while those opposing you and your opinions and actions
tend to be louder.It is easier to be
against things others do than to actually do them yourself, so real leaders are
usually the easiest targets.

3.It is frustrating.If you are a logical person, town government can be a very frustrating
thing.The rules governing local
governments are often conflicting, nonsensical, and just plain dumb.They often are in direct contradiction of
standard business practices, because despite what some may say – you can’t run
a town like a business.There are
methods and practices used with great success every day in most private firms
that are simply not allowed in the public sector.It is often enough to make good and capable
people throw up their hands in disgust and walk away.

4.It doesn’t always project the best personal image.There was a time when being a local official was something
the public at large greatly respected and appreciated.While that should still be true today, far
too often we fail to give our local officials the benefit of the doubt.We often seem to assume the worst.Whenever a tough decision is made by a board
or committee, many believe it a given the individual members were improperly
swayed by political (or other) considerations granted by those on the “winning”
side.Your claims of simply trying to
serve your community and do the right thing are often met with snickering.Being even a local politician has somehow
become a bad thing in this cynical world.

5.If you do your job well, you stand a good chance of
losing it.There is no
more self-defeating part-time position in the world than
being a good local leader.Often there
is no true success or failure, only survival or extinction.Sure, there are those who defy the odds and
serve long periods of time while maintaining their independence against the
ever-changing tides of public opinion.But
in general, local government is all about compromise.When you make the tough decisions, you take
the tough hits.Some of us are just
better at that than others.

So
now we’ve discussed both the pros and cons of holding local office.In the end, it’s all about trying to make a
difference.How do you do it?That’s up to you.

Bill Gouveia is a local columnist and longtime local
official.He can be emailed at aninsidelook@aol.com and followed on Twitter at @Billinsidelook

Everywhere
I look, there are lists.Blogs,
newspapers, magazines – they all seem to feature the top (pick the number)
things you should or shouldn’t do or say to someone in a specific position or
condition.You know, Seven Things You
Shouldn’t Say to a Pregnant Lady, or Nine Reasons Why a Tropical Vacation Beats
a Ski Vacation, and things like that.

So
I decided to try engaging in this phenomenon and doing a few lists of my
own.And since I primarily write about
local politics and public service, I figured I would start there.

Below
please find “Bill’s Top Five Reasons to Serve As Local Elected or Appointed
Officials”.

1.It’s a true form of public service.I am not one who does well volunteering in a soup
kitchen.I can’t hammer a nail straight,
so helping to build affordable homes is out.But I don’t mind giving of my time in an effort to make my local
government and my community better.I
actually like studying a complex municipal budget, considering ways to be more
efficient, or working with others to get a better value out of our tax
dollars.So that’s my form of public,
charitable giving.Of course, some would
like me to stop being so generous.

2.It makes you a better, more well-rounded
person.Serving as
an appointed and elected official has taught me a lot of life lessons.It has helped me understand people, and
served me well in my own business experience.You get to listen and talk to a wide variety of folks, and you learn
something from almost every one of them.If you can be an effective local official, it builds a foundation for
you to do other good things with your life.

3.You can make a direct and immediate
difference.If you
volunteer to work on the campaign of someone running for governor, congress,
senate or even president, you feel good about your efforts to make a
difference.But the truth is you
directly affect a lot more lives by being involved in the campaigns of local
officials.A selectman, a school
committee member, or planning board volunteer official can have a huge
influence in what happens in your neighborhood.The issues they deal with may not be as “sexy” or glamorous as those
facing the national politicians, but the impact on matters directly connected
to you and your family is probably greater.

4.You really don’t need to be a skilled
politician.Local
officials have many roles in town government.Some are highly visible leaders who need to influence voters to be
effective.Others are more
behind-the-scenes types who do the important but less publicized work which
makes your government possible.If
serving as a selectman isn’t your cup of tea, you can be a finance committee
member or perhaps serve on the local zoning board.You probably won’t get the recognition – good
or bad – that others do, but you will know you contributed to your town by
serving the taxpayers and residents.

5.It’s a relatively inexpensive hobby.While serving as a local official certainly can
consume a lot of your time, it generally doesn’t have to consume much of your
income.Campaigns can be expensive,
especially considering most local positions pay nothing in salary or
stipends.But for the most part local
election expenses consist of a few campaign signs, some newspaper ads (we’d
really like you to remember those), some web page construction costs, and maybe
a party to celebrate on election night.It is relatively easy in this technological day and age to get your name
and qualifications out in front of the voters.In most instances, money is not really a huge factor.

Those
are a few of the reasons why you should consider getting directly involved in
your local government as an appointed or elected official.Maybe next week we’ll discuss the reasons
people generally don’t do that very thing.

Unless,
of course, I can come up with list of the Top Five Reasons Chocolate Ice
Cream Should Be The Official Dessert Of Columnists Everywhere.

Excuse
me. I’m off to do
research.

Bill Gouveia is a local columnist and
longtime local official.He can be emailed
at aninsidelook@aol.com and followed on Twitter at
@Billinsidelook.

Remembering Baby Alex

Bill's Favorite Links

Followers

About Me

Bill Gouveia
Bill has been a newspaper columnist for the Sun Chronicle in Attleboro, MA for more than a decade, as well as former host of his own local cable talk show "An Inside Look" in his hometown of Norton, MA. Bill previously wrote columns for the Norton Mirror, Mansfield News and Easton Journal for about ten years, and Norton Patch as well, and is a former selectman in Norton. He is currently the elected Norton Town Moderator. His real-time job is as Vice President of Atlantic Stainless Co., Inc - a stainless steel distributorship in North Attleboro, MA. He and his wife Cynthia have been married for 40 years and have two sons, Aaron and Nathan. He is also the proud grandfather of William Gouveia, Avery Gouveia, Samuel Gouveia, Addison Gouveia and Thomas Gouveia.